He convincingly argues that halakhic reasoning about notions of conventionality and equity in environmental matters could be applied meaningfully to the problem of global warming. Such application requires a careful analysis of concrete human situations as well as a creative analysis of Jewish legal sources.

Prof. Twerski has written about Agent Orange, product liability including toxic torts, causation, consumer injury,and tort reform. Excerpts from his legal writings -- see the 1st comment -- show that Prof. Twerski cares about toxicality and corporate ethics. Plus, one Jewish joke. These excerpts may not be easy for non-lawyers, but they prove Dean Twerski’s familiarity with toxic products and poisoning. Enjoy. And.... mazal tov, Dean Twerski.

A word of caution. The right-to-know law’s specifics will be left up to Israel’s environmental ministry. The ministry has six months to propose regulations. Israel’s environmental minister, Shalom Simhon, knows how to play political hardball. Will Simhon issue strong regulations to give Israelis an effective right-to-know about toxic materials? Or will the freedom of information rules be saddled by loopholes etc?

Kudos to the Jewish (and Arab and Druze) activists who pioneered the new toxics law, the Citizens For the Environment (CFE) in the Galilee, directed by Liora Aharon. Email CFE your congratulations, send them a donation, and urge them to keep the pressure on the environmental ministry to promulgate a strong right-to-know law.

Kol tuv,

Kaspit

PS Besides writing 3 linked articles above, Zafrir Rinat, the environmental reporter for Ha’aretz, also gives us an update on a lawsuit to clean up the toxic Yarkon River.

UPDATE: The language of Israel's new environmental information law is indeed broad and vague:

Thanks to the Sagit Porat of the Israeli Life & Environment coalition, below is the Hebrew text of the gist of the new law. (Full text here.) It requires the public authority (the environment ministry) to publish on its website (and in other ways as the Minister's will set up). It stipulates that "environmental information [includes] information on released, spilled, emitted and discharged substances and the results of smoke, odor and radiation measurements, not in the private domain." Porat says that "includes" was discussed in committee, omitted from the text, and will (hopefully) be reinserted.

UPDATE: Let me know if you would like your county or zipcode listed here with its environmental data. You can also get more detailed zipcode-specific data through EPA's Envirofacts (use their "Quick Start").

You can find water, air and toxic pollution information on any US zipcode and county, thanks to right-to-know laws. For instance:

August 29, 2005

The "defense" of Reb Moshe, assuming such were necessary, is rather simple: "who is wise? He who perceives the future." If he had prohibited smoking entirely, it would have been honored in the breach -- people truly addicted to smoking are not able to stop immediately even when a doctor tells them that they are in imminent danger, so why would any reasonable person imagine that even bnei Torah would exhibit superhuman strength, enmasse?

Like other supporters of Reb Moshe, Rabbi Menken seems to argue that Reb Moshe did not want to prohibit (issur) what Orthodox smokers "cannot abide". Addiction seen not merely as a excuse, like duress, but as a reason not to publicly forbid smoking. However, this hypothesis about R. Feinstein’s motivation in 1963 has never been substantiated. Wouldn’t Jewish readers infer a "cannot abide" implication more from silence than from explicit argument(s) against a prohibition? [1] Moreover, various Orthodox authors understood his 1963 psaq to be permissive on smoking, hence the request for a reconsideration in 1981. [2]

If Rabbi Menken is correct, then Reb Moshe (1963) already viewed smoking as, ideally, forbidden from the outset (lechatkhila) but reasonably excused habitual smokers. So R. Menken retrojects R. Feinstein’s 1981 writing onto his brief reaction in 1963. It's not convincing historically, but I'd like to believe this because a hermercurial use of Jewish law, like all law, requires apologia for precedents. R. Menken further says:

Rather, [Reb Moshe] said that even those accustomed to smoking should not allow their sons to smoke. [Yes – 1981]And within one generation, smoking in the American charedi community went from ubiquitous to rare -- a far more precipitous decline than that in secular society, despite the medical evidence.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much reliable data on smoking in the American charedi community. I’ve heard of a decline, too – in comparison to Israel. When specifically did the decline in America occur? How much decline was promoted by secular anti-smoking efforts in the U.S.?

Kaspitכספית

[1]Cp. Jacob Katz, A Shabbes Goy, on the tacit use of the “community cannot abide” principle in regard to sabbath work practices.

Under Jewish law, a company must not harm customers, workers, neighbors or other people. Some damages require compensation, other damages (e.g., indirect) may be exempt from restitution but are still forbidden. As Aaron Levine has analyzed at length, people are permitted to consent to a degree of environmental harm. But that's informed consent. I think Jewish law clearly presupposes that sources of damage should be disclosed.

Under California's Proposition 65 law, California Attorney General Bill Lockyear announced a lawsuit this week about acrylamides in potatoes. California is suing McDonalds, Frito-Lay, Wendy's et alia to warn consumers about the cancer potential in potato products. Lockyear did not say whether he consulted the Talmud first...

Kaspit

As a big fan of Maine potatoes, my Dad may be concerned about whether telling people the truth will put a crimp on Frito-Lay and company. Right now, he's in the hospital recovering from surgery. Send him a refu'ah shleymah for me, and assure him that the jury is still out on hash browns!

My mother-in-law is having surgery today. A former public defender, she would be pleased that the California AG is doing something for the consumer... We wish her a refu'ah shleymah (speedy recovery) too!

UV radiation gets through to the earth's surface, now more than ever, because of the "hole" in the stratospheric ozone layer. The World Meteorological Organzation reports that the hole will enlarge for a few more years and gradually disappear by mid-century (Enviro law prof HT Reuters). So for the sake of our children, and to save our own skins, we slather on sunscreen all summer.

As you may recall, the stratospheric ozone layer is depleted by a few fancy chemicals, like halons and CFCs. Even after CFCs were banned from aerosols, the big manufacturers, eg DuPont, fought tooth and nail against CFC regulations. Instead, they expanded their markets for non-aerosol CFC uses. Only later, CFC production was curtailed by international treaty (the Montreal protocol).

Shouldn't DuPont pay for the some of the millions of skin cancer cases, cataracts, etc. caused by its atmosphere-toxic pollution? Instead, DuPont reaps more profits (probably more than Coppertone!) because they now manufacture CFC alternatives.

August 27, 2005

Talmudic medicine does not guide Orthodox Jewish doctors today. Doctors glean neither remedies nor bioethics from the Talmudic cures in recent daf yomi (ch 14 Shabbat). So, how does Artscroll annotator R. Yosef Davis explain Talmudic folk medicine? In a note on “The efficacy of Talmudic remedies” (109b2:10), R. Davis begins: “Over the next few pages (109a-111a), a number of remedies for various physical disorders are recorded. Many of these cures, however, are not consistent with the known laws of nature.” Here’s how R. Davis smooths over the Talmud’s conflict with science:

Beyond human reason. “… during the Creation, God invested various herbs, minerals and procedures with the power to effect remedies, some in ways that are comprehended by human reason and some in ways that are beyond our understanding” (Rashba I:413)

Known only to the wisest. Some remedies “are comprehensible only to those who are able to plumb the depths of the Sages’ words [Maharasha]. In particular , many of the various herbs recommended by the Gemara cannot be accurately identified.”

Do not try this at home. “Consequently, one should not attempt these remedies nowadays, since it is unlikely that anyone today will fathom the Talmud’s intentions, and one who finds his application of a remedy ineffective may come to belittle the words of the Sages” (Maharil, R. Akiba Eiger)

Ban on trying. “… one who does rely on Talmudic remedies in our era is punishable by excommunication” (Yam Shel Shlomo) More punishment below.

Changes in nature voids remedies. R. Davis says, “In addition, changes have occurred in the state of nature (nishtanu teva'im) since Talmudic times, and therapies which were efficacious in those times are not necessarily so nowadays.” [1]

Artscroll’s R. Davis is caught in the bind of the less-modern Orthodox. On the one hand, he admits that scientific knowledge rejects Talmudic medicine. He knows that even pious readers will find the remedies implausible. On the other hand, like much rabbinic discourse, he presupposes that one ought not deny outright the literal truth of a Talmudic statement. This may be due to etiquette, respect for elders, faith, epistemological humility, or the mythos of a legal hermeneutics. By stipulating the literal truth of Rabbinic utterances, the collision with science can lead Orthodoxy into controversial doctrines like da’as Torah, mystical pre-modern wisdom, and changes in nature (Hebrew data). Such Orthodox doctrines have been a Jewish blogging topic (see Hirhurim, Jewish Worker), esp. since the ban on R. Slifkin’s books about science and Torah.

Rabbinic clout. Why would a government official die of a snakebite if the (magical) remedy was apparently available? Abaye says that “perhaps he was bit by a Rabbinic (d’rabbanan) snake, for which there is no cure.” (bShab 110a) Artscroll’s R. Yosef Davis uses Abaye’s obscure explanation as a teaching moment. “Abaye surmised that the officer had violated some Rabbinic law…. Although some Biblical transgressions carry the death penalty and some do not, all Rabbinic offenses are punishable by death [at the hand of God] (Eruvin 21b and Rashi). Etc.” [2] In Jewish lore, God’s death penalty is often executed by animals, here via snake bite.
In sum, Talmudic remedies do not conform with modern science. To have faith in the infallibility of Talmudic texts, you can rely on several controversial doctrines. However, Jewish law requires that we use modern doctors. We are forbidden to use Talmudic folk cures. If the cures don’t kill you, a snake bite might do the trick.

[2] All rules in Halakhah may be fundamentally divided into the categories of Biblical i.e. revealed rules (d’oraita) and supporting Rabbinic rules (d’rabbanan). Transgressions of revealed law are punished by fines, flogging, offerings, exile, etc. and the death penalty. Rabbinic rule transgressions carry various earthly penalties, too, but here we learn that all d’rabbanan violations incur divinely-administered capital punishment.

August 26, 2005

Cigarette smoking is a form of self-induced toxic poisoning. So why did the greatest American authority on Jewish law (poseq), R. Moshe Feinstein, not declare tobacco smoking as prohibited? As Hirhurim points out, R. Feinstein did forbid marijuana. I’ve reviewed some of the comments on Hirhurim who criticize R. Feinstein on tobacco. Now let’s look at blog commenters and others who defend R. Feinstein’s approach. As noted previously, Reb Moshe said (1963, 1981) that smoking is not prohibited as self-endangerment because, given that so many indulge (dashu bo rabim), "The Lord preserves the simple" (shomer peta'im ha-Shem). Defenders mostly re-apply R. Feinstein’s approach so as to prohibit smoking:

A. The informed judge. Some argue that, if only R. Feinstein had known the extent of the health risks, he would have prohibited smoking. This is plausible and has long been advocated by his son-in-law, R. Moshe Tendler. (See D. below and [2]). However, I would point out that R. Feinstein had good access to health evidence in 1981 and still upheld that smoking is permitted under Jewish law. Indeed, R. Feinstein deliberately dismisses the health evidence as (potentially) erroneous.

B. The informed smoker. As long as smokers become aware of the serious health risks of smoking, they no longer qualify for the exemption that “The Lord preserves the simple”. Rabbi J. David Bleich recently argued that R. Feinstein’s 1963 ruling “accurately reflects the societal reality of that time… However, it is more than likely that, at present that condition no longer obtains.” [1] Thus, with mandatory package warnings (U.S.) and anti-smoking campaigns, most people do not take smoking risks for granted. (i.e., the dashu beh rabim exemption is gone)

C. Cumulative harm. A few commenters pointed out that it’s difficult to argue that any given cigarette causes harm. True, one cigarette may lead to many more. But a single cigarette cannot be forbidden as self-endangerment (e.g. Gil). Conversely, Mar Gavriel said: “I'm not sure that that's correct. For one thing, nicotine is inherently a poison. And for another, the act of inhaling smoke poses imminent danger to one's health. It won't be permanent, irreversible damage, but it will cause damage.” I would note that neither side clarifies the level of habitual smoking that might be prohibited under Jewish law.

D. Long-term harm. An anonymous blogger noted that Jewish law cannot easily forbid an uncertain harm that may be caused over the long haul. I would add that R. Bleich distinguishes between immediate and long-term risks (based on Binyon Zion 137). Since smoking involves long-term risks, R. Bleich argues that smoking is permitted as long as less than 50% of smokers are not irreversibly harmed. In 1977 and 1983, R. Bleich used this threshold to justify R. Feinstein’s conclusion. However, recently R. Bleich noted “that the cumulative risks … foreshorten the lives of the majority of smokers.” [1]

E. A defect in rabbinic authority. Mar Gavriel raises the question of whether Rabbis nowadays have authority under Jewish law to forbid smoking through a precautionary measure (gezerah). Indeed, R. Bleich (1977, 2003) asserts that modern Rabbis cannot proclaim a new health-based issur. Nevertheless, now even R. Bleich concedes that smoking is forbidden by the approach taken by R. Feinstein.

F. Halakhah responds to the community. Aramis argues: “What R. Moshe wanted to do was … not issue a pesak to the community which would be observed mainly in the breach.” Aramis is correct that halakhic principles that discourage rulings that the observant Jewish community cannot abide. Thus, Reb Moshe may permit smoking as long as people cannot abide by a prohibition. [3] This hypothesis cannot be proven but R. Feinstein’s 1981 obiter dicta lend credence to this notion.

Well, I've tried to do justice to the blog debate on Hirhurim, which I'd missed. Hopefully, I can wrap up my analysis later (by editing or with another post). Meanwhile,

[3] Alternatively, R. Feinstein’s position may be explained by halakhic principles that authorize Rabbis not to publicize certain rules. If so, he may privately consider smoking forbidden but feel that it is inappropriate to say so. This principle can be invoked to protect the overall integrity of halakhah.